Topic: The irony in using science to deny Allah Posted: 30 May 2014 at 12:29pm

The irony in using science to deny Allah

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe? – Al Anbiya 21:30

Is it not ironic that science, one of the tools that should facilitate man in appreciating the grandeur of the creator is being used by some in fact to deny the creator?

One of the arguments raised by these advocates of science is that they don’t believe in god as the existence of god is not proven by scientific facts. I wonder does that mean science has already established the existence of everything and nothing more exists in this universe unless already proven by scientific facts? We all know the answer is an emphatic “NO”, because science keeps discovering new things everyday, which even though were already existing in this universe, were unknown to man till yesterday, and this being a continuous process, at no point is man capable of declaring that “yes, we know it all”. The point is that science being a mere tool created by man, has never been and never can be an absolute authority to decide non-existence of something in this universe, let alone the creator. So the argument of man denying the existence of god because it is not proven by science, sounds more like the argument of a fish in a small pond denying the existence of an ocean.

Now, if we try to make a high level summary of what science has been successful in doing so far, we can summarize it as below:

1. Partly explaining the creation and existence of the universe
2. Substantially improving the quality of our lives through scientific inventions and discoveries using already available resources

While all of us acknowledge the advancements made by science and are grateful to the geniuses behind all these works, still we can clearly see that none of our scientific achievements under the above categories form the basis for denial of the ultimate creator.

Another popular question from the advocates of science is that “if god created the universe, then who created god?” What I would like to ask them in return is “what existed before that which has now been theorized as the beginning of the universe as per our current scientific understanding?”We know none of the scientific minds can give a clear answer - what I would like to convey here is that however advanced we may be scientifically, still there are limitations to man’s understanding, or boundaries beyond which man cannot imagine, explain or comprehend.

Moreover, if we analyze our inventions at an absolute sense, we can clearly see that the ultimate ingredients of all our inventions were not made by us; all these raw materials came from the nature. The whole argument can be summarized as below:

1. There are things in this universe which are beyond the comprehension of the best of human minds and there will be always
2. Man can never be an absolute creator or controller – because he is already so dependent on things which were not created by his hands that his very existence is impossible even for a few seconds without being dependent on these (e.g. the oxygen we breath), and he is absolutely helpless in controlling some of the natural phenomena when it happens (death being the perfect example).

If we can really give some thought on the above facts and reflect our limitations, then that will be the perfect starting point of appreciating the existence of the ultimate creator. Once we are able to get to this point, then there are ample signs around us to take us closer to realizing the ultimate creator and sustainer – Allah

Now let us look at this - it took the time and efforts of some of the best of human minds to formulate a theory explaining the solar system. Having understood the mathematical precision, genius, artistry and flawless design which ensure the motion of each planet without causing any collisions, which is more logical for man to believe? That such perfect design came in to being just by chance without the intervention of an external power OR the presence of an ultimate creator whose words are in front of us to guide us?

Lo! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of night and day, and the ships which run upon the sea with that which is of use to men, and the water which Allah sendeth down from the sky, thereby reviving the earth after its death, and dispersing all kinds of beasts therein, and (in) the ordinance of the winds, and the clouds obedient between heaven and earth: are signs (of Allah's Sovereignty) for people who have sense. – Al Baqara 2:164

And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit. – Al Anbiya 21:30

Is it not really man’s pride that makes him puffed up to deny the ultimate creator in spite of the numerous signs available all around him, and that too just by partially explaining this universe, whereas he has no qualms to conveniently set aside his scientific mind and attribute things beyond his comprehension to mere chance?

So let not our scientific achievements make us puffed up with pride to deny the ultimate creator, rather make us reflect and bring humility in to our minds, to understand our lowliness and the greatness of the ultimate creator – Allah!

1. Partly explaining the creation and existence of the universe
2. Substantially improving the quality of our lives through scientific inventions and discoveries using already available resources While all of us acknowledge the advancements made by science and are grateful to the geniuses behind all these works, still we can clearly see that none of our scientific achievements under the above categories form the basis for denial of the ultimate creator.

Correct, No Problem! (well I'd replace "the ultimate" by "a")

another popular question from the advocates of science is that “if god created the universe, then who created god?” What I would like to ask them in return is “what existed before that which has now been theorized as the beginning of the universe as per our current scientific understanding?”We know none of the scientific minds can give a clear answer – what I would like to convey here is that however advanced we may be scientifically, still there are limitations to man’s understanding, or boundaries beyond which man cannot imagine, explain or comprehend.

I would call this a draw: Religion cannot explain where God came from and Science can't explain where the laws of nature [which created the universe] came from. Both can equally claim that either God or the laws that govern nature simply existed for ever. Science does keep on searching however.

1. There are things in this universe which are beyond the comprehension of the best of human minds and there will be always 2. Man can never be an absolute creator or controller – because he is already so dependent on things which were not created by his hands that his very existence is impossible even for a few seconds without being dependent on these (e.g. the oxygen we breath), and he is absolutely helpless in controlling some of the natural phenomena when it happens (death being the perfect example).

Also this looks pretty ok to me (not sure about the death part though).

Now:

If we can really give some thought on the above facts and reflect our limitations, then that will be the perfect starting point of appreciating the existence of the ultimate creator. Once we are able to get to this point, then there are ample signs around us to take us closer to realizing the ultimate creator and sustainer – Allah

Well, here my convictions start to diverge. First if the laws of nature existed for ever you do not need a creator anymore (In the end you use the same trick by saying God is eternal). But much less convincing is to call the creator Allah. I once heard that there are 2000 religions on earth. I have no idea whether this number is right or wrong but in the end it does not really matter. All believers do unanimously believe that their religion is [the only] true [one]. In this – rather sentimental than logical thinking- there is no difference between religions (I invite those that do not agree to start a little discussion with Jehovah's testimonies or the infamous Mormons). I have no objective arguments to think that Christianity (for example) is any „more true“ than Islam (although I have a slight preference for Christianity in being a bit less harsh in its heaven/hell business).
Occams razor forces me to reduce the assumptions to a minimum which is that all religions are evenly likely to be wrong in their Deity.

Now coming to Abu Loren:

Science itself is a theory. Theory of this, that and the other. Now if we want to talk about these atheist and agnostic types, what it boils down to is that they 'think' they know better than God Almighty.

Sure, but also Islam is nothing else than a theory. Take away the [unproven] assumption that Mohamed is the messenger of god and your religion becomes pointless. The same applies to Christianity without resurrection. Of course will you keep running back to me saying: „But we do have prove that the Quran was sent by God“- well obviously not enough to convince the whole of humanity (nor me). This is by the way one of the striking differences compared to science: There is no Jewish nor Christian nor Hindu nor Islam science. Obviously science is a building that can convince beyond individual confessions.
To come to the main point: I openly admit that there are many things that I/we don't know. I also realize that we may never know the ultimate truth. It may not even exist. I go along with the (islamic) scientist Averroes who claimed that Logic combined with our senses are the [only] tool to get closer to the truth. I prefer this uncertainty to the [in my eyes] rather silly statement „We have the truth“ (just google „Islam, truth“ and you'll see). To me the claim of holding the [ultimate] truth just looks like bare ignorance.

Last not least: I'm agnostic not atheistic: This leaves the possibility of a god (even the one called Allah). There are other Gods that are thinkable: Some consider our Universe as a big Computer, in this case God is simply a (mega) programmer. Whatever the options are: I consider the likelihood that God (if he exists) is really interested in my very existence as so small that it doesn't impact my life by any means.

Very last not least: Indeed, science still permits a creator to exist, but saying that there are no conflicts is painting the picture in far too rosy colours. Just think about Giordani Bruno on the christian side or Darwins theory of evolution on the muslim side. Furthermore there are many logical conflicts in the muslim, as well as in the christian concept - unfortunately too many to add them here in two lines.

Science itself is a theory. Theory of this, that and the other. Now if we want to talk about these atheist and agnostic types, what it boils down to is that they 'think' they know better than God Almighty.

Sure, but also Islam is nothing else than a theory. Take away the [unproven] assumption that Mohamed is the messenger of god and your religion becomes pointless. The same applies to Christianity without resurrection. Of course will you keep running back to me saying: „But we do have prove that the Quran was sent by God“- well obviously not enough to convince the whole of humanity (nor me). This is by the way one of the striking differences compared to science: There is no Jewish nor Christian nor Hindu nor Islam science. Obviously science is a building that can convince beyond individual confessions. To come to the main point: I openly admit that there are many things that I/we don't know. I also realize that we may never know the ultimate truth. It may not even exist. I go along with the (islamic) scientist Averroes who claimed that Logic combined with our senses are the [only] tool to get closer to the truth. I prefer this uncertainty to the [in my eyes] rather silly statement „We have the truth“ (just google „Islam, truth“ and you'll see). To me the claim of holding the [ultimate] truth just looks like bare ignorance.

Last not least: I'm agnostic not atheistic: This leaves the possibility of a god (even the one called Allah). There are other Gods that are thinkable: Some consider our Universe as a big Computer, in this case God is simply a (mega) programmer. Whatever the options are: I consider the likelihood that God (if he exists) is really interested in my very existence as so small that it doesn't impact my life by any means.

Very last not least: Indeed, science still permits a creator to exist, but saying that there are no conflicts is painting the picture in far too rosy colours. Just think about Giordani Bruno on the christian side or Darwins theory of evolution on the muslim side. Furthermore there are many logical conflicts in the muslim, as well as in the christian concept - unfortunately too many to add them here in two lines.

Glad to be of service: Airmano

I don't know if you have ever read the Qur'an or the Seera of the Prophet (SalAlaahu Alayhi Wa Salaam). If you did then you didn't understand a thing. Actually there are verses in the Qur'an for people like you. Here are some :-

Sahih International

The example of those who disbelieve is like that of one who shouts at what hears nothing but calls and cries cattle or sheep - deaf, dumb and blind, so they do not understand. 2:171

Sahih International

And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. Even when they come to you arguing with you, those who disbelieve say, "This is not but legends of the former peoples." 6:25

Sahih International

And whoever Allah guides - he is the [rightly] guided; and whoever He sends astray - you will never find for them protectors besides Him, and We will gather them on the Day of Resurrection [fallen] on their faces - blind, dumb and deaf. Their refuge is Hell; every time it subsides We increase them in blazing fire. 17:97

Sahih International

And when our verses are recited to him, he turns away arrogantly as if he had not heard them, as if there was in his ears deafness. So give him tidings of a painful punishment.

To Abu Loren:
Your reaction seems quite stereotypical to me. It is something I have experienced many times: Whenever somebody expresses a doubt about the ultimate truth of the Quran an avalanche of suras/verses is given back as a response. I guess it is difficult to accept for a muslim having grown up with the logic that the Quran expresses ultimate truth, that it (the Quran) doesn't impress people outside Islam. To me it rather feels like a form of religious "Shock and Awe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe typically linked to threats of hellfire. In the end it is a circular reasoning which boils down to: "The Quran is right because it is written so [in it]". I can however assure you that I did read a good part of the Quran but I didn't find it convincing by any means I'm afraid. Personally I rather prefer arguments and/or development of thoughts and ideas than threats.

why do so many religions attribute such human qualities to their deities? a God that requires that I worship and believe in his greatness or burn in eternal hellfire is not acting like a deity at all but rather like a human which, actually makes sense, since man's capability to create things in his own image is unmatched.

Is it not ironic that science, one of the tools that should facilitate man in appreciating the grandeur of the creator is being used by some in fact to deny the creator?

If you are starting from the assumption that the purpose of science is to "appreciate the grandeur of the creator", then you are not doing science at all.

One of the arguments raised by these advocates of science is that they don’t believe in god as the existence of god is not proven by scientific facts. I wonder does that mean science has already established the existence of everything and nothing more exists in this universe unless already proven by scientific facts? We all know the answer is an emphatic “NO”, because science keeps discovering new things everyday, which even though were already existing in this universe, were unknown to man till yesterday, and this being a continuous process, at no point is man capable of declaring that “yes, we know it all”.

No scientist would ever claim that we "know it all". Only religion could be that arrogant.

The point is that science being a mere tool created by man, has never been and never can be an absolute authority to decide non-existence of something in this universe, let alone the creator. So the argument of man denying the existence of god because it is not proven by science, sounds more like the argument of a fish in a small pond denying the existence of an ocean.

Whereas religion is like a fish claiming the existence of a magical ocean where they will live blissfully forever after their deaths.

The scientist fish, on the other hand, would respond something like, "Well, we have no direct evidence one way or the other about this hypothetical ocean; but if it did exist, there is no reason to suppose that it is anything like what your religion describes, nor is there any evidence that we would go there after our deaths. Moreover, if we did, our best cosmological models suggest that such an ocean would be far too salty for us to live; and if there were other creatures there, at least some of them would be a million times bigger than us and would probably gobble us up without even noticing."

Which fish would be closer to the truth?

Another popular question from the advocates of science is that “if god created the universe, then who created god?” What I would like to ask them in return is “what existed before that which has now been theorized as the beginning of the universe as per our current scientific understanding?”We know none of the scientific minds can give a clear answer - what I would like to convey here is that however advanced we may be scientifically, still there are limitations to man’s understanding, or boundaries beyond which man cannot imagine, explain or comprehend.

You're right. There will always be plenty of stuff we can't explain. I can't explain it, and neither can you. The difference is that I am humble enough to admit I can't explain it. I don't feel any need to make up nonsense to cover up my ignorance. You talk later about "man's pride", but you have it backwards. The prideful thing is to claim knowledge of things that you cannot possibly know.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.